More fraud in science

In that the esteem in which “science” and “scientists” are held has in recent years has fallen to equal that of lawyers, used car salesmen and politicians, this recent article is of particular interest.

It deals with the rapidly increasing number of papers which are being retracted from mainstream, peer reviewed journals. The review notes that 73.3% were retracted due to “error”; and 26.6% were retracted due to “scientific fraud”.

It is interesting to note that in the five years between 2004 and 2009, the number of papers retracted due to scientific fraud increased seven fold.

Since the retracted papers represent only a small proportion of papers published every year, one can only wonder how much more garbage has been published, but not detected.

More importantly, this raises a number of interesting questions regarding the general standard of “science” and of “scientists”.

Similarly, since these papers were all “peer reviewed”, this does not speak well of either the standard of the “peers” or the “peer review process”.

Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 19 August 2011 - 11:37 AM

We actually face an even greater danger from extraterrestrials. There is currently a mothership circling overhead about to lay waste to earth for fear the gullibility of some people could spread to the universe.....

We actually face an even greater danger from extraterrestrials. There is currently a mothership circling overhead about to lay waste to earth for fear the gullibility of some people could spread to the universe.....

Beam me up, Scotty, before it's too late!

Yes, the problem is that many of these people are on the taxpayer's payroll.

PASADENA, CA—Groundbreaking new findings announced Monday suggest the record-setting heat wave plaguing much of the United States may be due to radiation emitted from an enormous star located in the center of the solar system.

Scientists believe the star, which they have named G2V65, may in fact be the same bright yellow orb seen arcing over the sky day after day, and given its extreme heat and proximity to Earth, it is likely not only to have caused the heat wave, but to be responsible for every warm day in human history.

"Our measurements indicate the massive amount of energy this thing gives off is able to travel 93 million miles and reach our planet is as little as eight and a half minutes," said Professor Mitch Kivens, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology. "While we can't see them, we're fairly certain these infrared rays strike Earth's surface, become trapped by the atmosphere, and just heat everything up like a great big oven."

Enlarge Image

"We originally thought that if this star was producing temperatures of 100-plus in the South and Midwest, it must be at least 100 degrees itself," Kivens added. "But it turns out it's far, far hotter than that, with a surface temperature of nearly 10,900 degrees Fahrenheit."

Kivens and his CalTech colleagues said this intense radiation, which results from constant nuclear reactions converting hydrogen to helium in the star's core, could also account for why the orb in the sky is extremely bright and difficult to stare at directly.

While scientists initially assumed the heat and luminescence of the star must make it the largest in the universe—a theory lent credence by the star appearing much bigger than other objects in the sky—they said the data actually appear to refute such a notion.

"Apparently it's gigantic simply because it's closer to us than any other star," Kivens said. "Which would also account for why we feel this particular star's heat during the day but are not warmed by the tiny blinking stars we see at night."

"It's interesting stuff," he added.

According to Kivens, the discovery has prompted researchers to explore the possibility that a variety of phenomena accompanying the heat wave could also be linked to the star, including taller grass, hot car seats, red skin burns, and sweating "even when one has just been standing there and hasn't been running around or anything."

An additional study is reportedly being conducted to determine if the unexplained shrinking of puddles until they disappear may be caused by star-hotness soaking up all the loose water. Moreover, scientists reportedly believe the heat emitted from the glowing orb could potentially be the reason why it is uncomfortable to walk on asphalt barefoot.

When asked if anything could be done to prevent or counteract the star's heat production, Kivens expressed skepticism.

"No, for the foreseeable future, I think we're locked into orbit with this thing," he said. "Although the star seems to disappear every night, 24-hour reports from around the world seem to indicate the star never leaves Earth entirely."

Residents of heat- and drought-stricken regions welcomed the findings, thankful to finally have an explanation for the high temperatures, if no relief from them.

"That makes sense, because it's usually hotter when that [star] is up in the air," said Stillwater, OK resident Asher Arps, 31, speaking to reporters as temperature rose to 110 degrees over the weekend. "I knew it lit things up, of course, but I didn't realize it could make things hot."

"The big star heats the earth, and the moon cools it—I get it," he added.

As to potential applications of the new discovery, experts acknowledge the possibilities could be limitless.

"This is a watershed moment," renewable energy specialist Dr. Martin Flint said. "Who knows where this could lead? Perhaps we could develop a method of harnessing these big star rays and transforming them into some sort of ecologically friendly power source."

"Wait, what am I saying?" he said, laughing. "I'm getting ahead of myself. We still don't understand how it's possible for that thing to be up in the sky in January when it's freezing outside."

Interests:I'm an atheist and a skeptic regarding paranormal beliefs, but nonetheless I find other people's belief systems fascinating. I think it's important for people who hold different beliefs to discuss with, and learn from, one another. The free exchange of ideas are essential to progress, and it's no coincidence that mankind's two greatest ideas, democracy and science, are based on this.<br /><br />Feel free to message me, if you want to talk. :)

Posted 25 September 2011 - 05:10 AM

You have to start worrying when there are no retractions. We don't see retractions in pseudoscience. If science was a means of propaganda, we'd never see any retractions. We'd see people all agreeing with each other in a big circlejerk. This is what we see in pseudoscience (ghost research and creation "science"). In actual science there's alot of policing going on, where frauds and errors are weeded out continuously.

In any human endeavour there will be bias, fraud and error. The sooner you realize this the better. This will happen in ghost research as well as real science. What truly make a difference is the amount of policing and the mechanisms to counteract bias and weed out errors. Pseudoscience today do little to address the problems of bias and there's practically no policing. That's why it's not science and won't be science unless there are some big changes.

Peter

Edited by plindboe, 25 September 2011 - 05:11 AM.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." (Bertrand Russell)

As usual, you fail to distinguish between the philosophical ideal of the open contestability of ideas, and the real world actuality of scientific dogmatism and fraud.

The environment and philosophy of contestable ideas is built on trust and sits on the premise that its participants share a common commitment to unbiased truth and fact; it depends on that which is reported is true. As such, it serves to expand and advance the pool of knowledge; this is the ideal of the philosophy of science.

On the other hand, scientific fraud is a criminal act which exploits the weaknesses of the ideal, and builds a frame work of false ideas, false data, obstruction of contestability, and the establishment of dogma.

Scientific fraud serves the interests of the perpetrators, but diminishes the body of knowledge, undermines the credibility of existing knowledge, causes an immense waste of resources, and brings all of science into disrepute.

While fraud has always existed in science, investigation and reporting of its incidence has previously been controlled and kept out of the public eye. Where big money is involved, dissenters are quickly made to understand that it is in their best interest to keep quiet.

It is significant that many of these frauds are closely linked to political ideology. That is to say, the political ideology and its agenda have directed the “science”. The “scientists” who are predisposed to this ideology have made a concerted effort to filter data to extract only that which supports their fraud; this fraudulent data has then been fed to unsuspecting scientists who have accepted it at face value, and built further careers on the premise of its veracity.

The secrecy and suppression around scientific fraud began to change with the “Climategate” scandal when it was revealed that the data underpinning the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been fraudulently manufactured by a group of corrupt scientists in a very successful scheme to increase their grant money.

This fraud has now grown to involve trillions of dollars, and thousands of “scientists”, in various related scams around the world. It continues to grow.

In light of the exposure of the AGW fraud, ethical scientists in other fields are becoming more willing to come forward and expose frauds in their own fields, some of which have persisted for decades.

The significance of this is that as these frauds become exposed, it causes all real scientists to question their entire knowledge base. How much of what they believe to be true is founded on fraud? How much is their life’s work really worth?

This has significance for Spookology and its associated fields.

“Science”, as it is currently practiced, is rife with dogma and ideology. ” This dogmatism has arisen from discredited political ideologies, and has been discussed in previous threads in these pages.

To the general detriment of real science, this dogmatism and ideology prescribes what constitutes “real science”, discourages challenges to the status quo, and provides an ideal breeding ground for fraud.

Characteristically, those people deeply committed to the dogmas of science remain oblivious to the fact that their judgements are unscientific, lacking in any foundation and leave themselves vulnerable to the consequences of fraud.

The net effect of this dogmatism is that huge areas of knowledge such as Spookology, for which there is an abundance of data, remain largely unexplored; and we are all the poorer for that.

Interests:I'm an atheist and a skeptic regarding paranormal beliefs, but nonetheless I find other people's belief systems fascinating. I think it's important for people who hold different beliefs to discuss with, and learn from, one another. The free exchange of ideas are essential to progress, and it's no coincidence that mankind's two greatest ideas, democracy and science, are based on this.<br /><br />Feel free to message me, if you want to talk. :)

Posted 26 September 2011 - 11:07 PM

As usual, you fail to distinguish between the philosophical ideal of the open contestability of ideas, and the real world actuality of scientific dogmatism and fraud.

The environment and philosophy of contestable ideas is built on trust and sits on the premise that its participants share a common commitment to unbiased truth and fact; it depends on that which is reported is true. As such, it serves to expand and advance the pool of knowledge; this is the ideal of the philosophy of science.

On the other hand, scientific fraud is a criminal act which exploits the weaknesses of the ideal, and builds a frame work of false ideas, false data, obstruction of contestability, and the establishment of dogma.

Scientific fraud serves the interests of the perpetrators, but diminishes the body of knowledge, undermines the credibility of existing knowledge, causes an immense waste of resources, and brings all of science into disrepute.

While fraud has always existed in science, investigation and reporting of its incidence has previously been controlled and kept out of the public eye. Where big money is involved, dissenters are quickly made to understand that it is in their best interest to keep quiet.

It is significant that many of these frauds are closely linked to political ideology. That is to say, the political ideology and its agenda have directed the “science”. The “scientists” who are predisposed to this ideology have made a concerted effort to filter data to extract only that which supports their fraud; this fraudulent data has then been fed to unsuspecting scientists who have accepted it at face value, and built further careers on the premise of its veracity.

I'm not sure what you think I fail to understand. I fully acknowledge that there are serious problems. The difference between you and me is that I don't have a one-sided view of what science is. I can acknowledge that it has problems, while also considering it the best method of discovery we currently have. The solution is not to keep ranting against science like you do, but to deal with the issues in science, and judging by the results presented in the OP, that's exactly what science is doing. People are caught, exactly because of the success of self-policing in science. You've failed to address this point.

Here are some facts that you've failed to address:

Fact 1: Any human enterprise will have its share of fraud and misconductDo you deny this?

Fact 2: Due to fact 1, science can only be reliable if it uncovers and deals with fraud and misconductDo you deny this?

Fact 3: You've provided evidence that science does in fact uncover and deal with fraud and misconductDo you deny this?

Fact 4: Spookology, like any human enterprise, will have its share of fraud and misconductDo you deny this?

The secrecy and suppression around scientific fraud began to change with the “Climategate” scandal when it was revealed that the data underpinning the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been fraudulently manufactured by a group of corrupt scientists in a very successful scheme to increase their grant money.

This fraud has now grown to involve trillions of dollars, and thousands of “scientists”, in various related scams around the world. It continues to grow.

In light of the exposure of the AGW fraud, ethical scientists in other fields are becoming more willing to come forward and expose frauds in their own fields, some of which have persisted for decades.

Six committees investigated Climategate and none of them found evidence of scientific conduct and fraud. Of course for conspiracy theorists like you that's not enough, because you've made up your mind. These committees must be in on it, right? More than 10 years of private emails numbering in the thousands and the best "proof" of some grand conspiracy seem to be a few out of context quotations and some scientists being jerks and venting frustrations.

To the general detriment of real science, this dogmatism and ideology prescribes what constitutes “real science”, discourages challenges to the status quo, and provides an ideal breeding ground for fraud.

You've obviously never read a scientific paper in your life. If you had, you'd know that science writing is full of challenges to the status quo. That's how you make a name for yourself in science, by challenging accepted hypotheses and supporting your case. Look at all the big names in science. They've all had impacts that have changed how scientists view the world. No one ever got big in science by saying "I agree with everything you say".

Characteristically, those people deeply committed to the dogmas of science remain oblivious to the fact that their judgements are unscientific, lacking in any foundation and leave themselves vulnerable to the consequences of fraud.

The net effect of this dogmatism is that huge areas of knowledge such as Spookology, for which there is an abundance of data, remain largely unexplored; and we are all the poorer for that.

Conduct some research. No one is stopping you. All you do is whine about how science doesn't accept spooks. So what? You obviously dislike science, so why do you care what scientists think about you? All it takes is that you get up of your armchair. Create your own peer-reviewed journals, study the philosophy of science and scientific methods, fund and conduct research, criticize the work of your peers.

Whatever you do though, just please stop with the whining. You seem to have dedicated your life to whining about science.

Peter

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." (Bertrand Russell)

Since we have had this discussion in the past, I suggest that you go back through previous threads and read what I have said about science, scientists and Spookology.

The reason the subject of scientific fraud has come up for discussion again is due to the change in public perception of “science” and “scientists” as a consequence of the “Climategate” scandal.

Whereas prior to “Climategate” the scandals of science were largely confined to “in-house” discussion, now they are more often being presented in open public forums.

As a consequence, the general public are starting to ask that if they have been lied to about something as major as the great “Global Warming Scam”, then what else have "scientists" lied about?

Currently, “science” and “scientists” are being viewed with unprecedented cynicism and scepticism; an anti-science backlash is developing in our society. One manifestation of this is the beginnings of talk within funding agencies for a cutback on funding for science; within funding agencies, scientists are starting to be viewed as just another self-interested political pressure group.

The “investigations” of the Climategate scandal to which you refer haven’t helped the cause of “science”; in fact, they have been quite damaging.

These “investigations” were conducted uncontested without involving the accusing parties, within very limited terms of reference by parties with a vested interest in the outcome.

The fraudsters were not cross examined under oath, nor was their research examined.

In other words, the results were preordained to be favorable to the fraudsters. This is why real scientists view these “investigations” with disdain and contempt.

You may also be aware of the fact that recently, the State Of Virginia instituted legal proceedings against one of the prime fraudsters in Climategate, Michael Mann. These proceedings are currently in the stage of gathering evidence for the filing of criminal charges of fraud against Mann.

As part of the process of discovery, the State of Virginia has asked that documents relating to Mann’s research work be released for examination. However, both the University of Virginia and Michael Mann are fighting tooth and nail in the courts to have the details of his research suppressed.

Given that his work was financed by the State of Virginia, and as such is the property of the State; and that standard scientific convention is to provide the details of scientist’s research to anybody that requests it, this attempt at suppression is extraordinary.

I can’t think of any way Mann could make a more public and unequivocal admission of guilt; and confirm the fraudulent nature of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”.

Regarding your criticisms of research in Spookology: could you please give me citations to the research which forms the basis for your comments? I would like to read it.

Interests:I'm an atheist and a skeptic regarding paranormal beliefs, but nonetheless I find other people's belief systems fascinating. I think it's important for people who hold different beliefs to discuss with, and learn from, one another. The free exchange of ideas are essential to progress, and it's no coincidence that mankind's two greatest ideas, democracy and science, are based on this.<br /><br />Feel free to message me, if you want to talk. :)

Posted 29 September 2011 - 11:34 AM

Since we have had this discussion in the past, I suggest that you go back through previous threads and read what I have said about science, scientists and Spookology.

The reason the subject of scientific fraud has come up for discussion again is due to the change in public perception of “science” and “scientists” as a consequence of the “Climategate” scandal.

Whereas prior to “Climategate” the scandals of science were largely confined to “in-house” discussion, now they are more often being presented in open public forums.

As a consequence, the general public are starting to ask that if they have been lied to about something as major as the great “Global Warming Scam”, then what else have "scientists" lied about?

Currently, “science” and “scientists” are being viewed with unprecedented cynicism and scepticism; an anti-science backlash is developing in our society. One manifestation of this is the beginnings of talk within funding agencies for a cutback on funding for science; within funding agencies, scientists are starting to be viewed as just another self-interested political pressure group.

Yes, there are plenty of GW deniers. A large part of it is because of the media. The way Climategate was portrayed in the media would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. Another part is due to the fact that people are generally ignorant of science and lazy. The "Hide the decline" quote mine is seemingly the most egregious example. No AGW denier actually took the time to read the whole exchange and try to understand what the mail was about. They heard the out of context sentence and took it as proof that scientists are trying to cover up the fact that the Earth is now cooling. In actuality it's about tree-ring proxies being unreliable to determine the temperature post 1960. The "hide the decline" mail was about researchers discussing how to deal with the problem of the misleading data. This problem (also called the divergence problem) had openly been discussed in papers by the CRU on numerous occasions, so suggesting that they were trying to cover it up is rather silly.

I highly recommend watching this video (you might learn something)->

Another recent example is the Dailymail article with the dramatic headline "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995". The headline was of course a complete fabrication, but this deceitful article was shared on more blogs than you can count. The worst part of it is that the article mentions the source very clearly; a BBC interview, which takes a second of googling to track down. Apparently none of these countless blog writers bothered to read the actual interview, but instead chose to blindly trust a tabloid press article. How lazy can you possibly be?

These examples are a dime a dozen. The current state of AGW skepticism is to misunderstand, quote-mine, distort research and scientist interviews, and whenever yet another "last nail in the coffin for AGW" is born thousands of blogs across the web parrot it without ever looking into the issue and reading the research in question.

In any case, I wonder what we'd find if we looked through all your personal emails from the last 13 years. Imagine finding the worst things you've said during that period and quoting them out of context. You're lucky though that you don't have a horde of conspiracy theorists desperate to discredit you.

The “investigations” of the Climategate scandal to which you refer haven’t helped the cause of “science”; in fact, they have been quite damaging.

These “investigations” were conducted uncontested without involving the accusing parties, within very limited terms of reference by parties with a vested interest in the outcome.

The fraudsters were not cross examined under oath, nor was their research examined.

Now you're just making stuff up. There were oral hearings and both the mails and the research was thoroughly examined. Read the actual reports, instead of simply reading the various blog posts and tabloid press articles out there that already agree with you. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee questioned Phil Jones a.o. about the mails. The Science Assessment Panel and Pennsylvania State University investigated the research. They made some criticisms for instance of the statistical methods used, but didn't find that more up to date methods would challenge the conclusions.

Which reminds me; it's funny that the conspiracy theorists proclaim that the committees were in on it, when the committees did actually offer several points of criticism in their reports. They found problems, for instance with opennes, behaviour and problems with some of the research, but what they didn't find was deliberate fraud and a conspiracy.

In other words, the results were preordained to be favorable to the fraudsters. This is why real scientists view these “investigations” with disdain and contempt.

No, they are viewed with disdain and contempt because they didn't give GW deniers what they wanted.

You may also be aware of the fact that recently, the State Of Virginia instituted legal proceedings against one of the prime fraudsters in Climategate, Michael Mann. These proceedings are currently in the stage of gathering evidence for the filing of criminal charges of fraud against Mann.

As part of the process of discovery, the State of Virginia has asked that documents relating to Mann’s research work be released for examination. However, both the University of Virginia and Michael Mann are fighting tooth and nail in the courts to have the details of his research suppressed.

Given that his work was financed by the State of Virginia, and as such is the property of the State; and that standard scientific convention is to provide the details of scientist’s research to anybody that requests it, this attempt at suppression is extraordinary.

I can’t think of any way Mann could make a more public and unequivocal admission of guilt; and confirm the fraudulent nature of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”.

Tell me when the verdict is in. Until that happens I'll let the lawyers sort out the legal mess.

Regarding your criticisms of research in Spookology: could you please give me citations to the research which forms the basis for your comments? I would like to read it.

There's no research about spookology so that's a strange question. It's my impression of spookology. If you disagree, I'm open to evidence. Let me see evidence that ghost hunters out each other. Let me see evidence that ghost hunters expose frauds, and that the fraudsters are discredited and are forced to step down, not being allowed to publish again. I don't mean the occasional disagreement, I'm talking about the continual scrutiny and weeding out of errors that we see in science. These things are what we should expect to see if a system is actually working.

Peter

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." (Bertrand Russell)